G.R. No. RTJ-08-2101; July 23, 2008
Emil J. Biggel, Complainant, vs. Judge Fernando Vil. Pamintuan, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Baguio City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Emil Biggel was accused of estafa. He filed a motion for reinvestigation before respondent Judge Pamintuan, arguing the information was filed without proper preliminary investigation. The judge ordered the public prosecutor to comment and repeatedly reset hearings due to the prosecution’s failure to file. On March 6, 2006, the prosecutor finally filed a comment. The very next day, March 7, Judge Pamintuan denied the motion for reinvestigation without awaiting the complainant’s reply, which he had earlier granted the complainant until March 10 to file.
Complainant then filed a motion for reconsideration and for the judge’s inhibition. The judge denied the inhibition and again directed the prosecutor to comment on the motion for reconsideration. The prosecutor failed to file this comment. Despite complainant filing several motions urging resolution over the following months, the judge took no action. The motion for reconsideration remained unresolved until an order finally granting it was issued on July 14, 2006, received by complainant on July 26, 2006—a delay of over four months from its filing.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Pamintuan is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving pending incidents.

RULING

Yes, the judge is administratively liable. The Court found that Judge Pamintuan violated Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates judges to dispose of court business promptly. His actions constituted undue delay. First, he hastily denied the motion for reinvestigation on March 7 without waiting for the complainant’s reply, which he had expressly allowed until March 10. This premature denial deprived the complainant of his right to be heard on the prosecution’s comment.
Second, and more egregiously, the judge exhibited unjustified delay in resolving the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Despite the public prosecutor’s failure to file the required comment and despite complainant’s series of motions pleading for a resolution filed in March, April, May, June, and July 2006, the judge took no action for over four months. This inertia clearly contravened the duty to act with dispatch. The Court emphasized that a judge’s failure to decide a case or resolve a motion within the required period is not excusable and constitutes a less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Considering the judge’s previous administrative infractions, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) with a stern warning.